Martha Martha Martha
Posted By Kathleen David on March 8, 2004
I think the only thing that Martha Stewart is guilt of is hubris and the crime of succeeded without being the “right” people. Personally, I find her personally annoying and her decorating tips leave me cold. I am more the Mary Engelbreit type or Sherlock Holmes Victorian Mess or Frank Lloyd Wright (I love his prairie designs) depending on my mood.
However, she built an entire empire on an unfulfilled niche of home decorating. She found something that no one else was doing and did it well. She appealed to the middle class and giving the illusion of being rich and well to do. She did too well and now she is being made an example of. I find that so wrong. I hope that she wins her appeal. There are so many more individuals that have done worse in terms of securities fraud (if there was any. I suspect she was not totally truthful to the Feds) and tax evasion (all kinds of loopholes there) than Martha ever did, costing the American Taxpayer more money in uncollectable income.
It’s the public’s right to turn on celebrities and viciously enjoy their downfall.
Sad to see we have to resort to corrupting the judicial system to do it. I mean, I don’t think it’ll end with throwing Gary Coleman to the lions for a packed superdome audience while Bush gives the “thumbs-down” from the imperial skybox. But we should keep an eye out.
It’s the public’s right to turn on celebrities and viciously enjoy their downfall.
Sad to see we have to resort to corrupting the judicial system to do it. I mean, I don’t think it’ll end with throwing Gary Coleman to the lions for a packed superdome audience while Bush gives the “thumbs-down” from the imperial skybox. But we should keep an eye out.
It does seem like they’re picking on her more than is absoluetly necessary.
Whether or not she’s guilty and regardless of her personal failings, I do have a little respect for the woman. She really did succeed in doing something few women in this country have – building a real financial and business empire from practically nothing all, more or less, on her own. Let’s be perfectly honest here – having a harsh personality, being ruthless, and bending the rules is something businessmen have been doing since probably close to forever.
Martha didn’t do what my boss did, and that was small time stuff. My (former) boss defrauded his company, stole from clients, and put us all out of work without paying our last month’s paychecks. Martha? All she did was sell a stock that probably everybody who was that involved in the market knew was going to go down well before that annoucement was made anyway.
Make her do something worthwhile – some kind of community service, pay fines that will go to educational afterschool programs for girls in high risk areas – anything! – other than sticking her in a jail cell where she’ll just drain out more of the taxpayers money.
It may seem like special treatment for the rich, but let’s face it – only the rich could pull off a crime of this sort and actually cause a big enough ruckus for the feds to get involved. I complained about my boss and the most I got was a shrug, a pat on the head, and a finger pointing to unemployment.
Let the punishment fit the crime (assuming there was one. I’m not sure there was. I mean, the amount of money she made from selling off those stocks was a piddly amount, as far as she was concerned. Why bother at all?). Hit her where it really hurts – the pocketbook – and make sure the money goes somewhere it will really help and not just a senator’s pocket.
The thing is she’s guilty as sin. She lied. She broke the law. I don’t see how there’s any evidence of her doing otherwise. Yes, she was stupid: trying to save $50,000 and eventually losing her whole empire; refusing to take a plea bargain that would have spared her prison even though she *knew* she was guilty (I bet anything that her lawyers advised her to take the plea and she refused); refusing to take the stand in her own defense, which might have helped somewhat (it obviously couldn’t hurt).
Stupidity, however, does not justify breaking the law.
Ms. K,
This is a bit out of left field, but were you by any chance thinking of Denis Leary when you wrote the title of today’s essay?
More specifically, the discourse on the “Lock & Load” album about Marv Albert.
“Marv, Marv, Marv. Marv, Marv, MARV! …What the H— were you thinking?!”
Well, the similarity of both instances is interesting. I think you could safely say, with Martha’s conviction and the Michael Jackson situation, that Letterman’s prayers to the god of easy jokes have been answered.
Ms. K,
This is a bit out of left field, but were you by any chance thinking of Denis Leary when you wrote the title of today’s essay?
More specifically, the discourse on the “Lock & Load” album about Marv Albert.
“Marv, Marv, Marv. Marv, Marv, MARV! …What the H— were you thinking?!”
Well, the similarity of both instances is interesting. I think you could safely say, with Martha’s conviction and the Michael Jackson situation, that Letterman’s prayers to the god of easy jokes have been answered.
Please God, don’t make me be the only one old enough to have gotten the “martha, martha, martha” reference.
Don’t worry, SER … you’re not.
And welcome to the blogosphere, Kath!
TWL
But if Martha had gotten off we would have heard about how, once again, being rich and white makes you immune to justice.
The lesson I take from this is to never buy stock in a company named after someone who has not been safely dead for a decade or 2.
SER-
It’s OK. Sometimes I am concerned that I am being too obscure in my references. Other times I create a reference and don’t know that I did it.
Greetings, KD!
First, Regarding your own Blog:
Right on! Finally, another place for me to fire forth that twisted and often taken-out-of-context thing I call My Opinion!
On Martha Stewart:
Err… ok, I just got a sick mind picture. Let me start again…
On the Subject of Martha Stewart:
I agree with KD insofar as if this had been a name that none have heard of, in other words not a celebrity, not only do I think we wouldn’t hear about it but I don’t believe that any charges would have been filed.
While I don’t expect our ‘System’ to be perfect in every way, I do have a high expectation of the proper use of that system. It seems that we put certain people on trial just to get off on watching them under pressure (in the case of Michael Jackson I think it’s largely self-induced). Meanwhile real real people incur real damage as a result from real crime. I’m not saying that Stewart didn’t commit a crime. I’m saying that the resources devoted to that crime, media coverage, talk shows, etcetera, would be better spent on helping those that truly need it.
Salutations,
Mitch
I enjoy seeing Martha Stewart skewered because she’s arrogant and self-aggrandizing. I’ve never had tolerance for people who think they’re all-powerful and the center of the universe…Stewart’s a diva, and she needs to be taken down a peg.
My distaste for her also stems from her hypocrisy…she builds a public image of being just another homemaker. On her television show, sh wears her oversized denim shirts and sensible pants, which almost seems deceitful, as if she’s appealing to her audience with the message “I’m just like you.” Anyone who sees candid pictures or coverage of her can see she’s hardly anything like the average housewife. I could probably live for six months on what one of her outfits costs.
I’ve managed to save up roughly $11341 in my bank account, but I’m not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?